This
matter is before the Court upon the request of plaintiff
Chauncey Leon Watkins, Jr., a prisoner currently incarcerated
at the St. Louis County Justice Center, for leave to commence
this action without prepayment of the filing
fee.[1]
Having reviewed plaintiff's financial information, the
Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee at this
time. In addition, the Court will allow plaintiff the
opportunity to submit a second amended complaint.

28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)

Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), a prisoner bringing a civil
action in forma pauperis is required to pay the full amount
of the filing fee. If the prisoner has insufficient funds in
his prison account to pay the entire fee, the Court must
assess and, when funds exist, collect an initial partial
filing fee of 20 percent of the greater of (1) the average
monthly deposits in the prisoner's account, or (2) the
average monthly balance in the prisoner's account for the
prior six-month period. After payment of the initial partial
filing fee, the prisoner is required to make monthly payments
of 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to
the prisoner's account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The
agency having custody of the prisoner will forward these
monthly payments to the Clerk of Court each time the amount
in the prisoner's account exceeds $10.00, until the
filing fee is fully paid. Id.

In this
case, plaintiff has submitted a prison account showing a
negative account balance of $-56.00. Therefore, the Court
will not assess an initial partial filing fee at this time.

Legal
Standard on Initial Review

Under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss
a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. A pleading that offers “labels
and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do, ” nor
will a complaint suffice if it tenders bare assertions devoid
of “further factual enhancement.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

When
conducting initial review pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), the
Court must accept as true the allegations in the complaint,
and must give the complaint the benefit of a liberal
construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). However, the tenet that a court must accept the
allegations as true does not apply to legal conclusions,
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, and affording a pro
se complaint the benefit of a liberal construction does
not mean that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation
must be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who
proceed without counsel. See McNeil v. U.S., 508
U.S. 106, 113 (1993). Even pro se complaints are
required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim for
relief as a matter of law. Martin v. Aubuchon, 623
F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980); see also Stone v.
Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004) (federal
courts are not required to “assume facts that are not
alleged, just because an additional factual allegation would
have formed a stronger complaint”).

Plaintiff
has not provided the Court with a full “Statement of
Claim” in his amended complaint. Instead, plaintiff has
stated generally that he was subjected to “cruel and
unusual punishment” and “due process
[violations]” during his incarceration at St. Louis
County Justice Services between the dates of July 29, 2016
and August 3, 2017. He states that also between these dates
he was subjected to “cruel and unusual
punishment” and “due process [violations]”
by the St. Louis County Circuit Courts. Plaintiff further
claims that during the dates of February 21, 2016 and August
3, 2017, he was subjected to “cruel and unusual
punishment” and “due process [violations]”
by the Clayton Police Department. Plaintiff has not provided
any additional factual assertions against the aforementioned
defendants.

Plaintiff
has provided a listing of the individual defendants, and next
to each name he has stated such assertions as: “cruel
and unusual punishment; due process; false imprisonment;
unlawful prosecution; false violation; did not enforce law;
refused me medical attention; refused me mental health
attention; was not enforcing policy; sexual assault
violation; etc.” Plaintiff has failed write in
paragraph form exactly what he perceives to be the unlawful
acts perpetrated by the individual defendants against him in
this action.[3]

Plaintiff
brings this action against defendants in their official
capacities only. He ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.